Apple's Beats brand in April unveiled the Powerbeats Pro, a redesigned wire-free version of its popular fitness-oriented Powerbeats earbuds.
Apple Ordered to Pay University of Wisconsin $234 Million in A7/A8 Patent Lawsuit
Apple has been ordered to pay the University of Wisconsin's intellectual property management arm $234 million in damages for infringing on one of its processor patents, reports Reuters.
Earlier this week, a jury ruled Apple had infringed on a patent owned by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) when it used patented technology in its A7, A8, and A8X processors included in the 2013 and 2014 iPhone and iPad lineup.
WARF had originally asked for damages as high as $862 million, but later lowered that request to around $400 million. Apple will be paying a little more than half of the requested amount with the $234 million award WARF received from the jury. The presiding judge ruled Apple had not willfully infringed on WARF's patent, so the damages award will stay at $234 million.
The patent in question, titled "Table based data speculation circuit for parallel processing computer," was originally granted in 1998 and covers a method for improving processor efficiency. It lists several current and former University of Wisconsin researchers as inventors.
The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation has also filed a second lawsuit against Apple for the same patent, accusing the company of using the technology in the A9 and A9X chips found in the iPhone 6s, 6s Plus, and iPad Pro.
For the first six months of 2015, Apple averaged a daily net profit of $134.7 million, which means the judgment will account for approximately 42 hours of profit. Apple has said it will appeal the ruling.
[ 149 comments ]
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
49 months ago
This thread still needs the obligatory; University of Wisconsin = patent trolls.
49 months ago
If it is true that Apple was not aware of the patent, this illustrates the big issue with the current laws. The law is meant to protect ideas from being stolen, but if the idea is independently arrived at, it shows that the idea was not novel to begin with.
In this case though, Apple was fully aware of the patent, because they referenced it in (ummm... let's see... searching the USPTO database ('http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PALL&RS=REF%2F5781752&Refine=Refine+Search&Query=ref%2F5781752+and+an%2Fapple')... ) wow at least 34 of their own patents.
The earliest cite I've seen so far is from 2007, so Apple knew about it long before the A7 was first used in 2013.
Bet the school itself sees NOTHING of this money.
That's a really bad bet. WARF was set up in 1925 specifically as a non-profit R&D organization that plows its patent revenues back into more research and into general grants to the university.
How does a publicly funded university hold a patent and it not be apart of the public domain?
WARF is separate from the university and funded by its own patents and projects.
whats the point of having a patient but not actively using it or licensing it?
WARF had been licensing this patent for years. Heck, their charter is to do research and license it.
According to their lawsuit, they approached Apple about licensing, Apple responded that they don't accept outside license offers and refused to negotiate, so WARF felt they had no other choice but to sue.
49 months ago
One correction to the story: The court already ruled that WARF is not entitled to treble damages since Apple put up a reasonable defense and did not "recklessly" infringe upon the patents.
49 months ago
Apple continues its tradition of breaking the law and infringing on others' rights.
Kinda like Intel?
(only difference, Intel settled out of court)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7_sjBlR5XKE
49 months ago
If it is true that Apple was not aware of the patent, this illustrates the big issue with the current laws. The law is meant to protect ideas from being stolen, but if the idea is independently arrived at, it shows that the idea was not novel to begin with.
49 months ago
For the first six months of 2015, Apple averaged a daily net profit of $134.7 million, which means the judgment will account for approximately 42 hours of profit. Apple is likely to appeal the ruling.
Really put's into perspective how much money Apple is making.
49 months ago
I was hoping they'd have to pay the original amount, it would make me feel better.
Oddly enough, patent law is not about your feelings.[ Read All Comments ]
After a busy few weeks of news and rumors, things slowed down a little bit this week, but there were still some major stories worth highlighting. Those include our first hands-on look at dummy models...
For this week's giveaway, we've teamed up with Reolink to offer MacRumors readers a chance to win an Argus 2 wire-free rechargeable home camera and a solar panel for charging it up outdoors.
...
Apple Music has renamed its "The A-List: Hip-Hop" playlist to "Rap Life."
Ebro Darden, global editorial head of hip-hop and R&B at Apple Music, will host a companion...
Samsung is believed to be Apple's exclusive supplier of OLED displays for iPhones, but it may have company soon.
In a research note shared with MacRumors, Barclays analysts said fellow...
1Password has restored the option for customers who originally purchased its iOS app to create a local vault during setup, after users queued up online to voice their frustrations with the fact that...
Apple is planning to open an office in highly desired location in Vancouver, Canada reports Bloomberg. The company has leased space in a 24-story office building at 400 West Georgia owned by...
Elevation Lab, known for its line of popular iPhone charging docks, today released the FamilyCharger, a multi-charging setup designed to allow you to charge all of your devices in one place.
The...
Apple today seeded the third beta of an upcoming macOS Catalina update to its public beta testing group, two weeks after seeding the second public beta and a day after seeding the fourth developer...
